Tuesday 13 August 2019

A summary and reflection of my interview in Matichon with respect to an interview with Reuters of General Apirat Kongsompong, the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army.

A summary and reflection of my interview in Matichon with respect to an interview with Reuters of General Apirat Kongsompong, the Commander in Chief of the Royal Thai Army.

General Apirat’s interview shows the intention of the military to support the government to control—rather than to serve—the people. [Since the 2014 coup d’état, both Thai and foreign observers have witnessed the arbitrary use of power by the military leadership.] His disregard for fundamental democratic norms such as the “freedom expression” undermines the voices of young people who disagree with the military government.

He portrays young Thais as naïve and vulnerable to “fake news”, arguing that they are more likely to be convinced by“alternative” sources of information rather than “the genuine information provided by the government and military. 

However, due to the Internet and other forms of technology, young Thais have better access to information than before. They have become more critical and analytical towards the state of democracy and human rights in Thailand. Furthermore, they are less likely to be intimated by the state and feel more encouraged to scrutinise Thai authority figures. As a matter of fact, the military and the Thai authority are not immune to scrutiny or criticism.


In addition, General Apirat’s interview highlights the embedded and continued hierarchical structure of Thai society. The cultural expectation of respecting adults, or “kaorob phuyai”, does not simply mean to be respectful, it carries a strong connotation of being obedient. The military and the Thai authority actively encourages and advocates for such a hierarchy, and uses it as another form of suppression. In general, kaorob phuyai acts to restrict the ability of people to question authority.



Thursday 9 May 2019

Interview on the Constitutional Court ruling


My interview on the Constitutional Court ruling that the calculation of the Party-List MPs by the Election Commission did not violate the 2017 Constitution. 

I primarily argue that the court ruling was rather predictable and did not have a significant impact on Thailand’s political landscape post-election, largely because Thai politics has been influenced and dictated by the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) and the military since the 2014 coup. People have been questioning the integrity and neutrality of the country’s independent bodies, especially the Election Commission (EC), specifically whether it is actually assisting the country return to democracy and serving the interests of the people.




Monday 4 March 2019

Quoted in The Nation , with respect to the 2019 Thai Election Campaign

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/politics/30365119

I was interviewed and quoted in The Nation , with respect to the 2019 Thai Election Campaign:

This time around, though, many other parties are also embracing populist policies.

The main message candidates have been delivering to voters has not changed much, with many parties’ political discourses still “trapped” in either the fight for democracy or populist policies, said Titipol Phakdeewanich, dean of political science at Ubon Ratchathani University.

The Democrat and Future Forward parties are leaning towards populism, while the pro-junta Phalang Pracharat is disguising its policies under the theme of “reconciliation”, he said. 
“But in reality, these discourses do not reflect any changes in Thai politics,” he said. 
For instance, he said, the Democrat and Future Forward parties are offering a welfare state but have yet to show how it will be sustainable or if recipients would be self-reliant.

Phalang Pracharat Party is relying on the reconciliation discourse to explain why the military is still necessary to maintain order. It doesn’t understand true democracy, Titipol said.
The political discourse used by pro-junta parties is undermining the progress of Thai democracy, he added.
However, he said, though the election is not expected to bring massive change to society, it will at least encourage voters to pay more attention to democracy.

“I think this election is more like a referendum on democracy or an indicator of how desperately Thai voters want democracy, rather than actually returning to true democracy. What we will have is just pseudo-democracy,” he said. “This election is being held just so that Thailand can be a part of international democracy. Otherwise it will be difficult for it to promote its economic policies internationally.”

Titipol, who lectures on political communication, said the most important concern was not about what politicians convey to voters, but rather voters being open to two-sided information.

“It doesn’t matter who you support, but you should make time to listen to all opinions so you can make a good decision,” he said.


Friday 8 February 2019

Election a tipping point for ‘Thai-style democracy’

Election a tipping point for ‘Thai-style democracy’

February 08, 2019 01:00 By Titipol Phakdeewanich 
special to The Nation

Officially, Monday’s registration of election candidates was not a significant milestone for Thai democracy. Nevertheless the excitement it generated among pro-democracy Thais, political parties and their candidates has sparked anxiety for the country’s anti-democratic movement.

This year’s election will certainly be crucial for the future of democracy in Thailand, though the outcome is in reality fairly predictable. The 2017 military-written Constitution incorporates legal mechanisms designed to enable the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), the military junta, to retain its grip on power after the election. 

Before the NCPO finally agreed to hold the poll, there had been ongoing political disputes – both in the real world and on social media – over the merits of elections versus continued military rule. These fights will persist ahead of next month’s election, whose result will indicate whether Thais want a liberal democracy, or the so-called “Thai-style democracy”, in which the universality of human rights is denied. 

Junta’s record 

Last week, Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha spoke to the nation about his achievements during almost five years in power, claiming to have made significant contributions to Thailand. The pro-military Phalang Pracharat Party hopes to capitalise on Prayut’s many populist programmes, such as the much-criticised welfare card for the poor, to gain votes. 

Prayut’s economic achievements will hardly convince the rural population and many other Thai voters, but his claim to have brought political stability, through military suppression, remains convincing to people across the political spectrum. This will not, however, easily transfer into votes. These days, rural Thais make more complex voting decisions than the typical picture of vote-buying suggests.

Meanwhile the persistence of Shinawatra-phobia continues to serve the interests of Phalang Pracharat, the Democrat Party and the Ruam Palang Prachachart Thai Party, especially in wooing urban-middle class voters.

In the rural North, the picture is still very different.     

“I trust Thaksin because his party delivered what they promised us: we can go to hospital when we are ill now. We remember a big drop in the drug problem when Thaksin was prime minister,” said a villager who preferred to remain anonymous, referring to PM Thaksin Shinawatra’s drug war, whose extrajudicial killings were criticised as violating human rights.

Voter loyalty?

The incumbent Pheu Thai party won almost 16 million votes in the 2011 election, sweeping the North and Northeast (Isaan), under the leadership of Yingluck Shinawatra. Although it was thanks to her brother’s legacy that she won 265 of the 500 seats in the House of Representatives, Yingluck also rejuvenated the Shinawatra brand by introducing popular rice subsidies (a policy that eventually brought her downfall) and other policies that were greatly welcomed by rural populations, especially in Isaan. Pheu Thai’s long history and success in the region underscores the loyalty rural voters feel towards the party.

Nevertheless, voter loyalty won’t be the only factor in the party’s performance. Embedded patronage networks – especially in rural villages where politicians tend to portray themselves as generous patrons rather than public servants – will also be key. As a consequence, Pheu Thai may suffer in areas where their former MPs have been poached by Phalang Pracharat.

However, public trust in Pheu Thai’s ability to deliver promises remains high compared to its political rivals, especially the Democrats and Phalang Pracharat.

Will election restore democracy?

The NCPO will likely maintain its grip on power, either with Prayut or another surrogate as next prime minister. The voting power of the 250 NCPO-appointed senators, enshrined in the 2017 constitution, assures that. So the question arises, why have elections at all?

The vote will be a crucial barometer of whether Thailand is moving forward. A regional beacon for democracy and development during the 1990s and early 2000s, Thailand’s democratic progress was abruptly halted and reversed by the 2006 and 2014 military coups.

The erosion of democracy and retrenchment of authoritarianism was hardly new, being a facet of Thai politics since the bloodless 1932 revolution. Since then, a group of conservative Thais among the political establishment have remained convinced that it is premature for the country to become a  “Western-style” or “liberal” democracy. Over time, this group re-enforced its so-called Thai-style democracy, which limits freedom of expression and denies the universality of human rights. 

Thai history over the past decade is in line with a global trend for democratic decline. However, the emergence of newcomers such as the Future Forward Party has not only encouraged a new generation to enter politics but also influenced old parties like the Democrats to provide space for political newbies. 

Of course, the parade of fresh, young faces won’t change Thai politics overnight. The conservative political establishment is deep-rooted and enduring, but political newcomers can bring fresh ideas to Thailand’s democratic movement in the long term.

Effects of campaign restrictions

Despite domestic and international criticism, the junta continues to defend its ability to ensure a “free and fair election”, denying the need for international observers from the European Union or the UN. 

NCPO-imposed restrictions may force more “constructive” campaigning, especially among anti-junta politicians. In Isaan, where campaign rallies are being closely monitored, many Pheu Thai candidates have avoided criticising the NCPO. Instead, they are focusing on a more positive discourse, with slogans such as: “Brothers, it’s your voices, your power to choose in March” and “Brothers, we can take our power back by going to the polls and voting against them.” This helps to instil a core democratic value in the minds of voters – “people power ”.

There’s no doubt however that a cloud of fear and intimidation hangs over the election. The NCPO has not created an equal playing field for all parties. Indeed, the restrictions will likely reward longstanding parties because of existing voter loyalty, with newcomers suffering as a consequence.

Ultimately, the election can only meet international standards if the NCPO takes a neutral stance. Without that neutrality, the national vote is nothing more than a means to legitimise and prolong the military’s political power.

Titipol Phakdeewanich is a political scientist at the Faculty of Political Science, Ubon Ratchathani University.